Private Property blocking access to public land

[Gilroy]

For city slickers that do that sort of thing,stuff tends to get real ugly real quick. I've seen enough "lightning" strikes to know over the years. The old adage that more flies get caught with honey than with vinegar really rings true.

Some city slickers you don't want to cross the Rubicon with them.

[Bushmoose]

Absolutely W. R. Seems that 'old' landowners do not like 'new' landowners. Especially if they are from the city. ' But , but, what do you mean we can't hunt this land anymore, we have done it forever, we were here first, go back to the city'.

See post #12

[gbk]

This is an interesting topic.If one owns the land as in the OP case-things look one way ,if one does not own the land,but want access to the lake - looks differently.

Here is a scenario for the Supreme Court(to help shed lights maybe on FAIR solution?)

Owners own the land. Their property- their ownership -their tax money.
BUT-they DO NOT own the lakes.
However-BECAUSE they own all the land around the lakes, and do deny acces -they actually OWN the lakes!

Expropriation comes to my mind.

Indirectly by landlocking the lakes-they bough themselves 2-3 private lakes(for FREE)

Since this should be a Big revenue loss/ownership loss ,and Citizens right taken away to access what is Publicly owned,this should be a big NO-NO.

How to solve this ,and "marry water with fire"?
Property owner's right vs Public rights.

I think they should -Impose a huge RENT/Lease on the landowner, landlocking the lakes.For the sole use of those Public lakes.Huge one........
Unless-the landowner does NOT come up with/agree to a mutually agreeable solution to the problem.

Open a non maintained road allowance-use at your own risk .Fence it off both sides if he is bothered .
OR
Grant road allowance to the Governement(with all responsibilities passed to the Governement)and a 20-30 m strip of the lakeshore ,so ppl can access it and enjoy it.
He can put up a fence-and turn his head away from the "mess"created by the supposed lousy users.

So he could-Stop worrying about the lake ,which is is by the way-NOT HIS.

If we all want to be really precise-those lakes belong to the ppl of BC.Or ppl of Canada.
Not just on the map or on the plot book.

[trimmer21]

A fella I know has a float plane fishing fly-in service who regularly drops clients into land locked lakes around Bancroft-Barry's Bay area. Land owners tried to stop him,but,got absolutely nowhere. They couldn't get any lawyers to act for them simply because they had NO case. One cottager threatened him by firing a shotgun in the air while buzzing him and his clients with his boat which only succeeded in him getting a weeks vacation as a guest of the province,firearm seized and a criminal record. All navigable water bodies are Crown land and so is the land around the lake 20' ashore of the high water mark (except for flooded farm land as mentioned previously). Even lawsuits were lost by the cottagers along Lake Huron and Georgian Bay years ago affirming Crown authority when some people tried to fence off water front.

[fishermccann]

See post #12

So wanting to control what happens on your own property is somehow wrong? Or only if it upsets the long time locals ? ......'Sure neighbor, you used to hunt here for generations, but now I own it, and I say you can't.' Does that makes him disrespectful of long time users of his property, and a bad neighbor? Should he worry about, 'lightning'?

[Gilroy]

This is an interesting topic.If one owns the land as in the OP case-things look one way ,if one does not own the land,but want access to the lake - looks differently.

Here is a scenario for the Supreme Court(to help shed lights maybe on FAIR solution?)

Owners own the land. Their property- their ownership -their tax money.
BUT-they DO NOT own the lakes.
However-BECAUSE they own all the land around the lakes, and do deny acces -they actually OWN the lakes!

Expropriation comes to my mind.

Indirectly by landlocking the lakes-they bough themselves 2-3 private lakes(for FREE)

Since this should be a Big revenue loss/ownership loss ,and Citizens right taken away to access what is Publicly owned,this should be a big NO-NO.

How to solve this ,and "marry water with fire"?
Property owner's right vs Public rights.

I think they should -Impose a huge RENT/Lease on the landowner, landlocking the lakes.For the sole use of those Public lakes.Huge one........
Unless-the landowner does NOT come up with/agree to a mutually agreeable solution to the problem.

Open a non maintained road allowance-use at your own risk .Fence it off both sides if he is bothered .
OR
Grant road allowance to the Governement(with all responsibilities passed to the Governement)and a 20-30 m strip of the lakeshore ,so ppl can access it and enjoy it.
He can put up a fence-and turn his head away from the "mess"created by the supposed lousy users.

So he could-Stop worrying about the lake ,which is is by the way-NOT HIS.

If we all want to be really precise-those lakes belong to the ppl of BC.Or ppl of Canada.
Not just on the map or on the plot book.

Some points you are missing, is that you assume the guests coming onto lakes via private land will be reasonable when allowed entry, see my post 16.

The next part your missing is that the owners of the property around the lake are paying big property taxes for lake frontage so nothing is free for the owners.

I think if I were in your position I would be much more offended by tourists camp's up north tying up lakes and all the surrounding Crown land, while paying visiting hunters are enjoying the exclusive use of the properties and its ALL CROWN land.

[Gilroy]

A fella I know has a float plane fishing fly-in service who regularly drops clients into land locked lakes around Bancroft-Barry's Bay area. Land owners tried to stop him,but,got absolutely nowhere. They couldn't get any lawyers to act for them simply because they had NO case. One cottager threatened him by firing a shotgun in the air while buzzing him and his clients with his boat which only succeeded in him getting a weeks vacation as a guest of the province,firearm seized and a criminal record. All navigable water bodies are Crown land and so is the land around the lake 20' ashore of the high water mark (except for flooded farm land as mentioned previously). Even lawsuits were lost by the cottagers along Lake Huron and Georgian Bay years ago affirming Crown authority when some people tried to fence off water front.

You got to watch landing on those remote lakes, lots of floating logs on the surface that could be a real hazard for float planes landing.

I wonder of you would support a a NO LAKEFRONTAGE tax law considering the owners do not get the exclusive use of the Lake even although they are paying full taxes on it?

[fishermccann]

T 21. Not true in all cases. I have pointed out that on Frenchmans Bay in Pickering, someone does own the land, under the water. It is not public land. No he does not own the water. Even if you have property fronting the water, you must pay him to be able put in a dock.

[Gilroy]

So wanting to control what happens on your own property is somehow wrong? Or only if it upsets the long time locals ? ......'Sure neighbor, you used to hunt here for generations, but now I own it, and I say you can't.' Does that makes him disrespectful of long time users of his property, and a bad neighbor? Should he worry about, 'lightning'?

I think the days of "lightning" are pretty much over considering the technology available today to monitor properties in real time.

[trimmer21]

T 21. Not true in all cases. I have pointed out that on Frenchmans Bay in Pickering, someone does own the land, under the water. It is not public land. No he does not own the water.

Yep,aware of that. See my post #22 on flooded farm land. Gilroy,cottagers already pay municipal taxes on their property. The lake has nothing to do with it. What is a NO LAKEFRONTAGE tax law and how would it work?